China’s Aircraft Carrier: What More To Explain To the U.S.?

Source: People’s Net — People’s Daily Overseas Edition

In the routine press conference of the U.S. State Department on Aug. 10, China’s aircraft carrier was the main topic. In 10 rounds of Q&A, the new spokesperson of the U.S.State Department Victoria Nuland was unable to cope with the questions. When speaking, the spokesperson was not only lacking in logic but also revealed a deep-rooted paranoid. There were three key words in Nuland’s Q&A.

The first key word is “concern.” This is caused by China’s aircraft carrier undergoing trials on Aug. 10. Nuland first announced that the U.S. has always been concerned about the development of China’s aircraft carrier, she also said that it was only one part of America’s concern about China since China is not as transparent as other countries.

When Nuland was expressing America’s “concern” about China, she didn’t mention China’s own concerns, which makes her biased. China has a coastline of more than 18,000 km. China has also suffered a lot in its history. Not long ago, American aircraft carriers showed off their power in front of China’s doorstep. China’s national security, sovereignty over its territorial waters, maritime rights and interests are inevitably China’s greatest concern. Before this, among the five permanent members of the United Nations, only China had no aircraft carriers. However, the number of American aircraft carriers is more than half of all the carriers around the world. China’s development of its own aircraft carriers is proper and reasonable; isn’t the U.S. a bit overbearing when it declares that it is “concerned” about China right after it started to develop its own aircraft carrier? There is no wonder that Nuland’s “concern” was interrogated at the conference; in the past 10 years, American military expenses has grown at a rate faster than that of China. The budget of American national defense is over $600 billion. In the situation where the U.S. enjoys such a great advantage, why is the U.S. still so concerned about China’s defense equipment policy and defense spending?

The second key word is “transparency.” Nuland patiently expressed that the U.S. has always thought that China lacked transparency in its military investments, and also mentioned that China’s transparency cannot compete with that of America’s. She also said that the U.S. itself needs greater transparency. On this issue, Nuland harped on the same old tune, taking one part for the whole. In recent years, China has explained its security situation, defense policy, the People’s Liberation Army’s modernization, the use of armed forces, defense mobilization, reserve forces construction, military legal system, defense industry, defense system, the establishment of mutual military trust and arms control in its white papers, which were appraised widely. Canada’s defense attaché to China, Capt. Mike McGrath, said that there’s no doubt that China has been trying hard to increase its military transparency. On July 27, the spokesperson for the Chinese defense department announced information regarding its first aircraft carrier; such a candid announcement of the information pertaining to the aircraft carrier is a positive step toward enhancing military transparency in the Pacific. Nuland’s old tune was scoffed at by reporters again: Is China’s aircraft carrier invisible or a miniature model? You already know it’s there, what is there to say about transparency? On the contrary, when America’s aircraft carriers cruise along China’s coastline, America’s high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft also fly near China’s coastal areas; did the U.S. transparently inform China of such developments?

The third key word was “explanation.” Nuland claimed that the U.S. welcomed China’s explanation regarding its aircraft carrier. She also hoped that China would release an official statement regarding the aircraft carrier. China’s defense department spokesperson has long pointed out that China has reconstructed a platform for a waste carrier for research and training. China’s research of the carrier is to strengthen the ability to maintain its national security and preserve peace. China adheres to the principle of peaceful development. China’s defense policy will not be changed, neither will China’s strategy of coastal defense. With such genuine explanations, why would the U.S. need another “official explanation”? Nuland’s request was rebuffed by correspondents: China said that it needed a carrier, isn’t that a good enough explanation?

In fact, it’s the spokesperson of the U.S. State Department who needs to explain what kind of pedantic mindset she had behind all her ridiculous words.